The wrestling match — and chess game — between David Wildstein and state Democrats leading the investigation into the bridge scandal will rage on this week, say lawyers on both sides of the divide.

Wildstein, the embattled former Port Authority official who ordered the lane closures near the George Washington Bridge, will "promptly" appeal the order of contempt he was slapped with at the end of last Thursday’s Assembly committee hearing on the September traffic backup, said Alan Zegas, Wildstein’s lawyer, in an interview late last week.

"It was palpably in violation of his constitutional rights," Zegas said, speaking of the contempt order, "because he has the right to remain silent. The committee was saying, ‘Well, our rules say that what he states here (in the hearing) cannot be used in other proceedings.’ But that is not accurate."

The lawyer added, "We’ll be arguing that the Legislature has imposed a penalty for the exercise of a constitutional right. … (It) was a clear violation of fundamental constitutional principles."

Meanwhile, the struggle over the hundreds of redactions Wildstein made to the 900 pages or so of documents he forked over to the Democratic-led transportation committee will promptly unfold as well, according to Leon Sokol, the attorney for the committee, which is headed by Assemblyman John Wisniewski (D-Middlesex).

"We would love to get the un-redacted documents and certainly we are going to pursue the un-redacted documents," Sokol said. "The procedure was specifically in the subpoena (sent to Wildstein): If you are going to claim a privilege (to withhold information), provide a privilege log.

Still, the back-and-forth over the redacted information could potentially work itself out more smoothly than other fights that have emerged so far, Zegas said.

He noted that he and Sokol may meet and that he’d like to come to agreement amicably over the redactions. At the same time, Zegas — for his part — views the redactions made as completely proper.

"Yeah, they wouldn’t have been done otherwise," he said, adding that Wisniewski and the committee have been asking for blocked-out dates of conversations shown in the documents and for explanations of "why we redacted certain things."

Chris Christie pal and key bridgegate figure David Wildstein refuses to testifyDavid Wildstein, the former Port Authority of New York and New Jersey official who ordered the closure of the George Washington Bridge lanes that sparked the scandal rocking the administration of Gov. Chris Christie was subpoenaed to testify before the Assembly Transportation Committee on January 9, 2014. Dozens of times, Wildstein invoked his Fifth Amendment rights and refused to answer questions. (Video by Brian Donohue/The Star-Ledger)

On Friday, Zegas put up a passionate defense about why Wildstein used the Fifth Amendment in response to almost all of the committee’s questions, including the most seemingly mundane of inquiries. He also explained some of the thinking behind him telling Wisniewski at the hearing that his client would answer more questions if he were to be given immunity from federal and state prosecution.

"There were already threats that had been made by Patrick Foye (the Port Authority’s executive director) about there being violations of the federal bridge act," Zegas said. "And the day before the hearing, Mr. Wisniewski said that what occurred was a conspiracy."

"That’s where it (using the Fifth Amendment) came from," he went on. "It’s not that I have a belief that some particular law was violated. It’s that comments had been made about threats of criminal prosecution." He added, "That’s my obligation, to make sure he (Wildstein) is protected."

In addition, Zegas noted, about an hour before Thursday’s hearing started, he saw a news alert that said New Jersey’s U.S. attorney, Paul Fishman, would look at the bridge scandal to see whether any federal law had been implicated.

Zegas said anything his client might have said during Thursday’s hearing could be used in other investigations.

"Certainly a federal investigation would be able to use it," he said. "So, too, a New York State investigation. And I think, potentially, even a New Jersey investigation."